Dammit, there goes my clinch of US 24 in Missouri (and, wider, Topeka to Toledo). But that doesn't say HOW it's going to be rerouted. Existing routes would have to be either I-70 or MO 210, both of which are going to create a visibly stupid routing. And since Kansas isn't involved, that precludes moving US 24 onto I-670 as well. The least horrible alternative from a map persepctive would be to reroute 24 over Front Street, where MoDOT has a SPUI at 29/35 and brand new DDI at 435, but that would require taking over the street. (And while they're at it, maybe put MO 12 out of its misery in Independence. OTOH, maybe it's the only state highway intended to serve a National Historic Site.)

IA US 65: Later this fall. Related story for those interested. What I could do is leave "IA117/330" where it is - it's still on the route, it just has to be made a closed point - and make the new spot "IA330_N". Would that be acceptable, or do I need to move the label to the new interchange? The northern tip of IA 117 is going to change as well.

NC I-295: I appreciate that at least this route is following planned convention with the idea of making it a complete loop, but just a look at the map/satellite makes me wonder where the heck they're going to put it.

Dammit, there goes my clinch of US 24 in Missouri (and, wider, Topeka to Toledo). But that doesn't say HOW it's going to be rerouted.

I had that concern as well, for my clinch from Colorado to Detroit. But the application makes clear that the new route will follow I-70 and I-435, both of which I've clinched (even if I probably haven't made the movements between US 24 and I-435, and I-435 and I-70).

Ah, I just found the files linked to above. Five extra miles. Let's all be stupid forever.

I don't expect this to be done when I go to KC in a week, and besides, I'm going on the other side of the city to check the new 35/69 Liberty exit and the new US 69 Missouri River bridge. (All this and 69 STILL follows that convoluted route between MO 283 and the state line.) But that does leave the question of when I should change it though. I've done the interstates but I feel it's not quite a clinch if it's not signed, though I'm probably going to have to let this be.

The good thing is, Missouri is pretty good at signing US routes when they hop onto interstates. Don't know what they'll put up for Exit 2H - good luck cramming "Independence Ave" in the "East 24" space.

When AASHTO lets each of us be grand poobah for a day it'll be hard for me to decide whether to impose my will on the KC metro area or North Carolina first.

NC I-295: I appreciate that at least this route is following planned convention with the idea of making it a complete loop, but just a look at the map/satellite makes me wonder where the heck they're going to put it.

IA US 65: Later this fall. Related story for those interested. What I could do is leave "IA117/330" where it is - it's still on the route, it just has to be made a closed point - and make the new spot "IA330_N". Would that be acceptable, or do I need to move the label to the new interchange? The northern tip of IA 117 is going to change as well.

This opened Friday. Any further advice on what to do? I'm inclined to preserve the point for US 65 but not for IA 117, since that's a much less traveled route.

IA US 65: Later this fall. Related story for those interested. What I could do is leave "IA117/330" where it is - it's still on the route, it just has to be made a closed point - and make the new spot "IA330_N". Would that be acceptable, or do I need to move the label to the new interchange? The northern tip of IA 117 is going to change as well.

This opened Friday. Any further advice on what to do? I'm inclined to preserve the point for US 65 but not for IA 117, since that's a much less traveled route.

US65:The point for a closed intersection, I could go either way on. If it were right at the ramp termini, I'd say don't bother (NB1 doesn't have a *RivDr, because 192 is right there, and 1PPI). This is just far enough away to be justified though. Compare/contrast Watford City ND & the N end of ND US85BusWat. I'm fine with including the existing point as closed. No need to move the label to the new interchange, if IA117 or IA330_N as you suggest could work there. Your solution is a good one for avoiding messing with people's existing .list files. Maybe I'm being too literal minded with this last bit, but *IA117/330 seems a bit oogy and confusing if there's the modern, actual "IA117/330" intersecting elsewhere. Hidden AltLabel instead, *OldIA117/330 +IA117/330, or something?I'd definitely include a point at the north end where the new alignment peels away from the old, though.

IA330:Similar situation as above. If keeping the old point, US65_N could be used.CRF17 will need to be marked closed.

IA117:I'd say leave an *OldIA117 and add an Updates entry, for those who'd want to de-clinch the new extension.

US 65: Closed point IA117/330. Added new point IA330_N.Iowa IA 117: Slightly moved point US65/330 to reflect closed intersection. New interchange labeled IA330.Iowa IA 330: Closed points US65/117 and CRF17. Added new point US65_N.

I named it IA330 because 330 is the thru-route for the expressway. US 65 is "exiting from itself".

While my name plan doesn't break any files, it also gives unearned credit to US 65 travelers. Anyone who traveled the entire route, or anyone whose south endpoint is 117/330, will get the diagonal. So it's less elegant than I thought it might be.